Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ

Rhatahema's page

327 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 327 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

Yeah, the rules are only half written. Nothing new. I've had to expand and revise the rules for almost every Pathfinder character I've played.

I would say that the DC is based on your rogue level, and that you use your rogue levels in place of alchemist levels to qualify for bomb discoveries.

I'd only let a player take Bomber's Discovery once, since it doesn't state you can take it multiple times. Fast Bombs might seem like the obvious choice, but with such fewer bombs per day than an alchemist, I could see a debuff bomb discovery taking priority. Tanglefoot Bomb and Force Bomb would be solid options.

This hasn't been brought up, but I'd treat the alchemist's bombs class feature totally separate from a rogue's bomber talent. Otherwise you risk too big an incentive to dip alchemist.

The capability to speak isn't an Ex or Su ability either, but the polymorph rules still state you need that ability to complete verbal components. Which must mean that certain forms cause you to lose the ability to speak.

I assume that humanoids can see because they have eyes. If they take a form without eyes (excluding those that can inexplicably see without them), then they will lack vision. Is there a rule that states line of sight originates from your eyes? Can I see just fine while blindfolded because the rules don't say I can't?

But I guess it's true that the rules don't say you need eyes to see, or that the reason an ooze is blind is because it doesn't have eyes.

I would say you're blind. Certain creatures have sight despite lacking eyes, but if the creature is normally blind due to its lack of eyes, I'd say you're likewise blind when polymorphed into such a creature. You already lack a mouth with which to speak or complete verbal spell components, and hands with which to manipulate objects and complete somatic components. I don't see why sight would be an exception.

As a workaround, by 10th level a druid could cast Echolocation. Blindsight 40ft, 10 minutes/level. Though I don't think it would be unbalanced for a DM to house rule that the player gains the ooze's blindsight either.

I agree that lingering performance should kick in no matter how the bard ends the performance. If you end your performance with a spell, you have ceased performing. Personally, I'd rather it kick in anytime the target ceases to hear/see the performance, such as being blinded/deafened/out of range/etc., but that would be a house rule.

As far as the finale spells go... I think the intent is that they only be used while the bard is actively performing. The rules that are written might allow something else though.

chbgraphicarts wrote:
Bronnwynn wrote:
ohako wrote:
Feral Combat training doesn't need a line saying it applies to Brawler's Flurry, as Brawler's flurry is a full round action that lets you attack as if you had TWF feats. Nothing more or less.
Brawler's Flurry does already allow for Natural Attacks to be included, yes. The real reason to take Feral Combat Training is that it would allow your Natural Attacks to deal damage at the same rate as your Unarmed Strikes (which is to say A LOT).

Brawler's Flurry does not allow for natural attacks to be included:

Brawler's Flurry wrote:
A brawler with natural weapons can't use such weapons as part of brawler's flurry, nor can she make natural weapon attacks in addition to her brawler's flurry attacks.

I don't think Feral Combat Training would help with this. You'd still be prohibited from adding natural weapon attacks, and having the two-weapon fighting feat when attacking with that weapon wouldn't do any good either. According to the FAQ, you could use the natural weapon to make iterative/off-hand attacks through Flurry of Blows, but Brawler's Flurry is a distinct class feature with its own mechanics. So I think it would be a house rule to allow it to work similarly.

Here's the developer comment on double barreled pistols: link. Whatever the slight difference in wording may be, the intent seems to be that double-barreled pistols and double-barreled muskets can both double each attack you make, at a -4 penalty for each.

For some unsolicited advice: Be content with a single double-barreled pistol and replace those feats with something interesting.

AlanDG2 wrote:
I suspect you can only get the benefit of one night's rest in one 24 hour period, no matter how it is obtained.

I agree with this. Consider that 24 hours of rest heals only twice the hit point damage and ability damage as 8 hours of rest. If you could benefit from 8 hours of rest more than once in a day, why not rest 8 hours three times in row to heal three times as much?

I would definitely treat it as an improvised weapon when used without a charge. Probably 1d6/x2, B&P. A great club is designed to bludgeon. A chainsaw isn't weighted for it and doesn't have the striking surface for it.

I agree with keeping the -4 penalty. Keep in mind that, presently, even pommeling with a sword or striking with the haft of a polearm suffers that penalty (baring feats/class features).

Chess Pwn wrote:
why wouldn't it make sense if your interpretation is correct? If it works for some it should work for all.

It should be written in such a way that it does work for all choices. What I'm saying is that I think the feat is written in such a way that, when used in some combinations, it doesn't. I've changed my mind a bit, and could see how the feat might have been intended to apply to a narrower range of feats. But even still, say a feat allowed to select from a range of weapons. Martial versatility still allows you to deviate from that range, and opens up unprecedented choices that may be nonfunctional.

And the feats in question don't "apply" to a specific weapon. They can only be used with a specific weapon. That's the difference. Pummeling strike doesn't apply to unarmed strikes. Pummeling strikes can only be done with unarmed strikes. That's the difference and that is what lets you determine if it will work or not.

"Apply" is loose term. I don't think the distinction is so clearly defined in game terms. But I agree with your intuition on what the developer might have intended.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Tarantual: If martial versatility stated "one combat feat that applies to a selected weapon", rather than "specific", I'd totally agree. But they're two different terms, and I don't agree that using weapon focus as an example sets the precedent that the chosen feat must allow a selection.

Chess Pwn wrote:
Then go ahead and take shield master with longswords. That should work too right?

I'm not claiming martial versatility is going to make sense with every choice. Some choices will result in nonsense. Others will work pretty sensibly (such as using dervish dance with a longsword). Just arguing that the feat is worded in such a way that those feats are options. I'd say it's similar to racial heritage in that way. It opens up unprecedented combinations. As far as what martial versatility can apply to, I'd handle it on a case-by-case basis, personally.

ANYWAY, not saying I disagree with the logic of the proposed restriction. I just don't agree that's what's written. Maybe that was the intent though, I don't know.

@Tarantula: So from "Choose one combat feat you know that applies to a specific weapon (e.g., Weapon Focus)." you concluded "Abilities that work only for a specific weapon get no benefit from martial versatility."?

Pummeling Style is a combat feat and it applies to a specific weapon (unarmed strikes). You can argue that it isn't balanced for use with other weapons and I'd probably agree with that. But there's nothing in martial versatility that states the feat has to be one in which the weapon choice is initially optional. That's just inventing rules for the sake of balance. Weapon Focus as an example doesn't cut it. I doubt the feat was intended to be so restrictive, and it isn't worded as such.

claudekennilol wrote:
Rhatahema wrote:

Yes, you qualify. See this post by Jason Bulmahn.

Jason Bulmahn wrote:
• A brawler can use the feats granted by brawler's flurry to qualify for other feats, but can only use those other feats when using brawler's flurry (as that's the only time she actually meets those prerequisites).
If this was in the playtest forum, why didn't this make it into the final release (I ask as I realize there are even still typos that were pointed out that didn't get fixed for release...)?

I would say it did make it into the final release. The relevant text in the final print is identical to the text in the 2nd playtest document. It states the brawler "has" the feat, as opposed to the 1st playtest, which stated you were "treated as having" the feat. I think the developers assumed their intent would be clear from how the ability is worded. From the number of times the question has come up in the forums, it could use an FAQ.

Yes, you qualify. See this post by Jason Bulmahn.

Jason Bulmahn wrote:
• A brawler can use the feats granted by brawler's flurry to qualify for other feats, but can only use those other feats when using brawler's flurry (as that's the only time she actually meets those prerequisites).

The more I think of it, the more I agree with Renchard. I was impatient reading through the focus abilities and realized that's because I felt most the abilities were redundant. It's a class that grants Sp/Su powers based on spell schools, and then spells from those spell schools. I'm not saying there isn't mechanical incentive to pick up a special version of protection from energy, displacement, shadow conjuration, etc. But I'd rather see either more powers emphasizing their unique connection with objects, or to see the focus powers expanded to be a complete alternative to spellcasting. I really like the way the powers scale with level, and could see building an occultist around a few types of powers (shadow, scrying, and disguise, for instance) in place of spellcasting, if those themes were expanded and could be focused on (rather than nudging the player to become a generalist over time). In regards to item abilities, it'd be nice if the Occultist got a spell or spell-like ability like impart mind.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm not understanding what this class excels at. If I'm building an occultist, what do I build around? Do I build an occultist like I'd build a wizard? What options make up for the class having only a 6th level spell progression?

It seems like a lot of effort to plan as well. You need to consider what order to learn new schools by looking over what spells are available at each level from each school, and then what focus abilities open up at a given level from each school. That requires a lot more deliberation than just picking a new spell or discovery.

Also, many of the focus powers just feel like spells, or are variants of existing spells. And yet few of them feel unique enough to warrant passing on a class with 9th level spellcasting and a larger spell list. But maybe I'm missing something important?

Psychic magic seems like a poor fit for the alchemist because of the Thought/Emotion components. An alchemist may not employ Verbal/Somatic components, but there's a strong focus on the material component (thematically). Spiritualism may still play a role, but the process of writing formulas and brewing extracts feels closest to the arcane to me.

Mark Seifter wrote:
Since all psychic casters are spontaneous, you can use a Logical Spell metamagic and pull a slot of 1 level higher when this comes up. Most of the people who can make you take free action shaken are melee martial characters (Cornugon Smash, Enforcer, etc), who don't otherwise have great options for messing up a psychic caster like they do with somatic casters.

What seems tricky to me about that is how the drawbacks of thought and emotion components might combine to make things more difficult than they should. Say you're shaken by a demoralize attempt and are forced to cast a Logical Spell. It takes a full-round action cast, correct? Meaning if you're in a situation where you need to make a concentration check (such as to cast defensively), taking a move action to center yourself (and avoid the +10 DC) means you wouldn't finish casting until your next turn, which in turn might expose you to more concentration checks from taking damage.

Though I won't insist it needs to be changed without playtesting it first. Just an observation.

As above, I'm not seeing anything in the rules about requiring a prerequisite be met for 24 hours, or a distinction between permanent and temporary.

I think its fair for GMs to rule either way. Using temporary means to meet feat prerequisites is fine in my book. Likewise, I'd also enforce losing feats when you fail to meet the prerequisite, such as losing Raging Vitality when constitution damage takes you below 15 Con.

Mark Seifter wrote:
If you're shaken, you're not casting an E spell (without the metamagic feat to remove the E anyway). Think of it in some ways as the martial's response to psychics (since tying them up or gagging them won't work)

I'm all for boosting martial versatility, but this feels a bit extreme. From a roleplaying perspective, if a psychic caster is effected by crushing despair, for instance, I'd rather see them struggle to compose themselves emotionally than just opt for a workaround like metamagic. Why not use a similar mechanic to the thought component, where you can overcome it? Maybe it's impossible to cast without a move action to compose yourself, at which point you can roll v.s. psychic spell failure (10% per spell level?). Players would still invest in workarounds like they do verbal/somatic.

Chess Pwn wrote:
So if I use a one handed weapon in two hands, according to you, I'd also get 1xDex and 1.5xStr, since it has the same wording as dragon style. You support this right?

No. In that case, you're talking about a single source of damage with a multiplier adjusted by handedness. Or at least that's my read.

Let's say you're a monk in dragon style. Previously, I'd have said the intent was that the 1.5x STR bonus to damage replaces your normal strength modifier to damage, since stacking would be excessive. But with the FAQ clarifying that strength bonuses are considered a single source and thus overlap, it works as intended as written when you add that damage on top of your usual damage. So:

Unarmed Damage Die +(STR_MOD*1)+(STR_MOD*1.5)

With an Agile weapon, you use your dexterity modifier in place of your strength modifier on damage rolls with the weapon. It doesn't say damage rolls with the weapon excluding feats, class features, etc. It says you use one ability modifier in place of another for damage rolls. So

Unarmed Damage Die +(DEX_MOD*1)+(DEX_MOD*1.5)

The Dexterity bonuses would likewise overlap. You replace the ability modifier, but not the multipliers, save for excluding the benefit of wielding the weapon two-handed. That restriction isn't the same as saying "You can never add more than 1x your Dexterity modifier to damage with this ability". For it to negate all sources of your strength bonus to damage, it would need to say something along the lines of "When wielding an agile weapon, add your dexterity modifier to damage...You cannot add your strength modifier to damage while wielding an agile weapon."

Nocte ex Mortis wrote:

Why? You are now using your Dexterity bonus instead of your Strength bonus. Nothing effecting your Strength means jack. It could be 50,000 times your Strength bonus to attack...

But you are using Dexterity to attack. Same thing for damage.

Look, I understand your point regarding Dragon Ferocity. Dragon Ferocity increases your existing strength modifier to damage, so I can see where you'd find that incompatible with an ability that swaps your strength modifier for your dexterity modifier. By your interpretation, the strength modifier that would normally be increased has ceased to exist. So it's meaningless

Dragon Style, on the other hands, adds 1.5x your strength modifier to damage. It doesn't modify your existing strength modifier to damage at all. It simply adds damage derived from your strength modifier (which would ordinarily overlap with your existing strength modifier to damage).

Nocte ex Mortis wrote:

Common sense, every time the rules substitute one Attribute for another, pretty much every time anything like this comes up.

As for how you use your Dex mod in place, how do you think Weapon Finesse works then? It does exactly the same thing as Agile does, except it applies to your attack bonus instead.

So, would you then state that a Belt of Strength +6 then adds an additional +3 to your Melee bonus?

No, I don't think enhancements to your strength score affect your attack bonus with weapon finesse, because you're not adding your strength modifier to attack rolls while using weapon finesse. But, suppose a feat allowed you to add 1.5x your strength modifier to attack rolls with light weapons. That would either need to be substituted by your dexterity bonus, or added to your dexterity bonus.

Nocte ex Mortis wrote:
No, your Strength is no longer factored in whatsoever. That means that anything that would affect your Strength for damage means... nothing.

??? How are you supposed to use your Dexterity modifier in place of your Strength modifier if all Strength modifiers are erased from the equation? Where is this stated?

Chess Pwn wrote:

Same difference. you could add 5x str. you're still replacing any damage done by str by damage done with dex.

use her Dexterity modifier instead of her Strength modifier

doesn't matter if you've changed that modifier or adding that modifier 500 times. you're doing dex instead of str.

So your interpretation is that adding your dexterity modifier to damage instead of your strength modifier means, "Set all Strength modifiers to damage to zero, then add your dexterity modifier to damage"? That would be good news for secondary natural weapons in the case of Agile.

Agile states you "apply [your] Dexterity modifier to damage rolls with the weapon in place of [your] Strength modifier." If Dragon Style allows you to add 1.5x your Strength modifier to damage, you either apply the agile property to that feat, or add the damage from the feat after applying the agile property to your weapon. I don't see how Agile causes the bonus damage to just disappear. Dragon style never sets the condition that you only add damage if your base weapon deals your strength modifier to damage.

Chess Pwn wrote:
While using Dragon Style, increase your Strength bonus on unarmed strike damage rolls by an additional one-half your Strength bonus, to a total of twice your Strength bonus on the first attack and 1-1/2 your Strength bonus on the other attacks

You're quoting the FAQ on Dragon Ferocity. My last post was quoting Dragon Style, which works differently. You add 1.5x your strength to damage, rather than increasing your strength multiplier to damage as you do with Dragon Ferocity.

Oh, though I can think of one reason why your increased strength multiplier should be applied first. If you did it in the opposite order, you could get both dexterity and strength to damage.

For example, with Dragon Style, "you can add 1-1/2 times your Strength bonus on the damage roll for your first unarmed strike on a given round." Normally, that overlaps with what your strength modifier to damage would normally be, since they are, according to the FAQ, bonuses from the same source (strength). But if you're wearing an agile amulet of mighty fists, you've swapped your normal strength bonus to damage for your dexterity bonus. Meaning you'd deal Unarmed Dice + 1xDex Modifier + 1.5xStr Modifier.

Chess Pwn wrote:
shroudb wrote:

but the reasoning for not including it seems really counter intuitive.

i mean at this point we have:
when x, multiply x*1.5
replace x with y

that should intuitively translate when x, multiply y*1.5

Except your doing the equation wrong.

It goes like this.
When X, X = X*1.5
replace x with y.
So since dragon ferocity was increasing str, and you throw str out the window by getting dex instead, you don't get the multiplier on dex.

I think that's the angle Mark was coming from, but it's dubious to me. You've each essentially presented the two orders by which you can apply the two effects. One that makes the two abilities compatible and one that makes them incompatible. What I'm not seeing is a rule that supports what order to apply these effects.

Joe M. wrote:

C: Power Attack is not a "spell[ ] or effect[ ] that enhance[s] or improve[s] either manufactured weapons or natural weapons." Therefore, the monk's unarmed strike is not "treated as a natural weapon" in this case.

(And so, Power Attack operates on it at the normal -1/+2 rate.)

Ah, true, missed that point. Makes me think that Pathfinder really needs a more defined catch-all term for the benefits of spells, feats, traits, class features, racial abilities, etc. "Effects" is so vague it may as well say "some stuff".

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, let me see if I can distill each side's conclusions drawn from the following text:

Unarmed Strike wrote:
A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.

Conclusion A: If it's treated as a natural weapon, it must be treated as either primary or secondary, because all natural weapons are either primary or secondary.

Conclusion B: It's neither a primary nor secondary natural weapon because it isn't specified as either, and doesn't need to be.

At this point, not sure there are many arguments left unstated.

Sounds like it should work to me. If you swap your Strength modifier with your Dexterity modifier, I'd think you'd multiply your dexterity modifier by whatever amount you multiplied your strength modifier (unless stated otherwise). For instance, if you wore an agile amulet of mighty fists, I'd expect your dex bonus to be halved when attacking with secondary natural weapons, or multiplied by 1.5 when attacking with a sole natural weapon, since it only excludes the increased multiplier for two-handed weapons. Unless I'm missing a rule that states otherwise.

Jaçinto wrote:
So you are going to have to make a choice now. Either they did the rules for natural weapons wrong or they wrote the feat wrong or wrote the monk's unarmed strike wrong. Either way, you are doing RAI instead of RAW and in a rule question, especially in PFS where you MUST be RAW, this is a RAW situation. The unarmed strike specifically says it does count as natural AND manufactured for anything that enhances or improves either one. The feat enhances or improves one of those. Therefore, it works because in this specific case, it DOES count as a natural weapon according to Paizo's very clear wording in the monk class entry.

First, any ability that states you treat one thing as another thing for purpose of "effects" has already lost hope of having "very clear wording".

Second, you're claiming that, RAW, a monk's unarmed attack is considered a primary natural weapon. That's never written. To come to that conclusion, you need to decide the primary/secondary designation is an effect, that it must apply to the monk's unarmed strike, and then choose which you think is most applicable. I disagree with those conclusions, which is why I disagree that the additional power attack modifier would apply. It would be no different if the feat applied to "natural weapons made of stone". You've met part of the prerequisite (a natural weapon), but not all of it (made of stone).

Quote: is that clump of meat and bone growing out of the end of your wrist not natural?

Well, that's just the rule. It's what I quoted earlier.

PRD, Equipment, Unarmed Strike wrote:
Unarmed strikes do not count as natural weapons (see Combat).

Keep in mind this argument is focused on power attack, not dragon ferocity. Dragon style/ferocity I agree fulfills the STR modifier prerequisite within Power Attack. It's the Primary/Secondary designation I take issue with.

I understand that it would make sense to consider unarmed strikes natural weapons, being a part of the creature's body and all. But by Pathfinder's rules, they're explicitly not natural weapons.

Concerning the monk's unarmed strike, would you consider a natural weapon's designation as primary or secondary an "effect"? I know its a vague term, but I wouldn't. Those descriptors are there to tell you how the weapon is used in an attack. Unarmed Strikes have their own special rules for how they're used (as a manufactured weapon). As such, they're neither primary nor secondary (on top of not acutally being natural weapons).

Keep in mind I'm not arguing all of this is intuitive or how I'd have written things. Just my interpretation of what's written.

I don't think the increased power attack ratio in conjunction with feral combat training makes this combination a "must have" for all monks. You still need two feats (weapon focus and feral combat training) for each set of natural weapons you want to benefit from the style. Plus, you need to acquire those natural weapons in the first place. At mid to high levels, I'd expect a PC to have a greater number of unarmed strikes in a full-attack than natural attacks, so I'd say the boost to power helps mitigate that difference. I do think it's strong, but I think it's an overestimation to say it will eclipse all other monk builds.

PRD, Equipment: Unarmed Strike wrote:
Unarmed strikes do not count as natural weapons (see Combat).

So by default, they're not natural weapons. You can't add an unarmed strike to a natural attack sequence as if it were a bite or claw, for instance. You essentially "wield" an unarmed strike as a manufactured weapon. You never have the option of attacking with it as a primary or secondary natural weapon.

PRD, Monk: Unarmed Strike wrote:
A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.

Your unarmed strikes qualify as a natural weapon for certain effects, but you never gain the ability to treat your unarmed strike as a primary natural weapon.

With Feral Combat Training though, I can't see any reason this shouldn't work. Though there is the odd exception that power attack doesn't account for primary natural attacks that add more than 1.5xSTR mod to damage (as the first attack would while using Dragon Ferocity).

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would suggest handling it with circumstance modifiers. For instance, say the character succeeds on a perception check to hear a distant call from some creature. If they wanted to ID the creature based on its call, you might up the knowledge DC by +2 for identifying through sound only, and +2 for the difficulty hearing the noise. Keep note of the character's check, and when they encounter that same creature up close, compare that check to the lower DC to see if they learn any additional information.

Some creatures have distinctive sounds, smells, silhouettes, etc., others don't. I'd adjust DCs on the fly and most of all keep things simple. If it's important for the creature's identity to remain a mystery, up the DC liberally. If not, up the DC by less.

The boost to Dragon Ferocity is welcome! 1.5xSTR+.5xSTR meant you lost damage from rounding down odd strength modifiers, compared to x2. So good news! I hope we can get more clarification on Tiger Claw down the road (multiple unarmed strikes as a single attack).

While on the subject of ability modifiers and stacking bonuses, do you have any input on conflicting modifiers? For instance, if one ability reduces your modifier and another increases it simultaneously (Flurry of Blows and the Two-Handed Fighter's backswing come to mind, though there might be other cases), which should take precedence?

Joe M. wrote:
(Dragon Style and Tiger Claw[?] will need language adjustments, but that was bound to happen to something with as contentious an FAQ topic as this one, and don't really look as important as the antipaladin effect.)

Dragon Style actually works fine. It changes your strength modifier to damage from x1 to x1.5. Dragon Ferocity is what this FAQ breaks. You're right about Tiger Claws.

Mark Seifter wrote:

Now to explain taking Mark Gone Wild multiple times--

...Choosing the second option twice doesn't stack with itself because Mark Gone Wild is a same source of both untyped bonuses. Additionally, they don't stack with choosing the sixth option twice, for the same reason...

So, by this logic, a class feature that grants you an untyped bonus to AC and an untyped bonus to AC equal to an ability modifier wouldn't stack, because they're from the same source? That sounds a bit like...

Monk: AC Bonus (Ex) wrote:
When unarmored and unencumbered, the monk adds his Wisdom bonus (if any) to his AC and his CMD. In addition, a monk gains a +1 bonus to AC and CMD at 4th level. This bonus increases by 1 for every four monk levels thereafter, up to a maximum of +5 at 20th level.

Mark Seifter wrote:
I've found, when looking over more sources, that it's rather the reverse. The discontinuity is between several size Small and Medium manufactured weapons, as d8 -> 2d6 -> 3d6 or d8 -> d10 -> 2d8 are ubiquitous elsewhere, and each have multiple progressions that source them. In fact, deal with the Small to Medium manufactured weapon thing (or "#1") and I can propose to the rest of the PDT an elegant and concise solution that covers all cases in the rules and changes more-or-less nothing else.

The thing that bothers me about this pair of progressions is that 1d10 reduces to 1d8, while 1d8 otherwise increases to 2d6. That's odd, and ideally the sequence would run the same forwards as backwards. But it seems like an inescapable problem so long as two separate damage progressions exist.

I'd prefer to see all weapons shift to the 1d8 -> 1d10 -> 2d6 progression, and ditch the 2d8->3d8->4d8 progression all together. To me, streamlining weapon damage dice into a single progression would be worth the overall nerf. That said, I can see why that isn't a feasible change. It'd build a mountain of errata, and is the kind of thing you do between editions.

Kared wrote:

Does this mean that monks can grab feats that require full bab but only use them while flurrying? If TWF feats from flurry counts for prereqs then why not bab.

And tbh, a lot of people want monks to have full bab anyway...

No. The class feature addresses this specifically.

Flurry of Blows wrote:
For the purpose of these attacks, the monk's base attack bonus from his monk class levels is equal to his monk level. For all other purposes, such as qualifying for a feat or a prestige class, the monk uses his normal base attack bonus.

The FAQ does elaborate that power attack and similar feats still work off the modified BAB though.

2: Well, the feat states right off the bat that it requires a full-round action. Seems clear enough, but maybe I'm missing something.

1,3-7: Nope*6.

No developer response on these questions to my knowledge. I'd give my opinion on how to run it, but I'm sure you've read plenty of them. Still waiting for the final draft of Pummeling Style. :)

Rushley son of Halum wrote:
Again, you're not listening. I'm talking about a feat that you get as a bonus feat for the archtype that doesn't even operate except in specific circumstances, and which you don't even meet the perquisites for.

I was listening, but I was focused on brawler's flurry, and missed the point about the odd bonus feat mechanics of shield master.

Throw Shield wrote:
...At 11th level, a shield champion gains Shield Master as a bonus feat. She must meet all prerequisites before selecting that feat.

I agree that this is unintuitive. First, that you need to qualify before "selecting" a feat you're given without option. Second, automatically receiving a bonus feat that you may not qualify for. It's one thing to select permanent feats that build off temporary feats on your own initiative, but to be handed a high tier feat and have to work backwards is odd. I'd have rather seen them offer any feat in the chain at that level, or have them rolled into brawler's flurry, or just give it to you without meeting the prerequisites.

Still, I don't think that's a problem with martial versatility or brawler's flurry. I think it's a problem with the archetype overcomplicating things.

Rushley son of Halum wrote:

Ok, lets start by looking at shield master.

As a feat it requires both shield slam and two-weapon fighting before you can use it. The brawler picks it up as a bonus feat at level 11 but can only use it if they meet the prereqs. So already we're having to sink a feat into shield slam.

Now look at what Shield Master actually does. So the enhancement bonus only works during flurry? And if I don't take shield slam it just flat out doesn't work at all?

That's my main problem. It's just a very odd chain of issues culminating in something that makes little sense.

I'm not sure I'm understanding your problem. So you've take the Shield Master feat chain without taking TWF as a feat, relying on brawler's flurry to gain the feat. So you can only use Shield Master to add the shield's enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls during a flurry... In what way is this nonsense? It's just a special way of attacking with your shield, not a something inherent to your character (ex: eldritch heritage). I don't think it's a stretch to see it as part of the flurrying technique.

And you're not required to skip taking two-weapon fighting. If you want to take the feat to have access to shield master all the time, then use flurry to get the extra attacks from ITWF or GTWF, you still have that option.

Kosstheboss wrote:
...This is a single attack roll, regardless of the number of times a d20 is being rolled. It clearly states that you are making a number of rolls EQUAL to the number of attacks, not making multiple attack rolls. Each roll that "hits" is qualifying an amount of damage the attack will ultimately do....

So, it clearly states you're making a number of rolls equal to the number of attacks, adding your attack bonus to each, and comparing it to the target's AC to deal damage. But they're not attack rolls. Sounds a lot like an attack roll to me. And if it's not, what would you roll? Nothing says you roll a d20. Maybe it's a d100.

I understand your reasoning based on the wording, but I think it's a mistake to think we can find the truth of how this feat works if we just read the rules close enough. Sometimes a rule needs elaboration to work. Typically, 1 attack roll = 1 attack. Options that apply to an attack or attack roll generally assume this is the case. When an ability defies that convention, it needs to explain exactly how, which pummeling style doesn't.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

From a post made by Jason Bulmahn back during the playtest. The relevant bit:

Jason Bulmahn wrote:
• A brawler can use the feats granted by brawler's flurry to qualify for other feats, but can only use those other feats when using brawler's flurry (as that's the only time she actually meets those prerequisites).


Rushley son of Halum wrote:
I just think thats a really bizzare way for it to operate and doesn't sound like as intended. Either we have a feat or we don't. It shouldn't be conditional.

I don't see how conditional feats are at all complicated, and as stated, martial versatility revolves around the idea. I also consider it a big improvement over the language of flurry of blows, which works as if you were using a feat.

That fuel isn't considered ammunition could have been intentional. There might be options available for ammunition that the developer didn't want extending to flamethrower tanks.

That said, If you're willing to bend the rules to make it work as ammunition, you might as well extend those rules in a way that's intuitive and balanced.

As a house rule, I would treat each charge of oil and propellant as a unit of ammunition, and the tanks as the container. So if you wanted masterwork or magic ammunition, you'd pay the cost of six units per fuel tank. If you wanted to use abundant ammunition, cast it on the fuel tanks as say it refills the fuel that's been expended each round. The flames produced by the weapon are no longer ammunition, so there should be no worries about them disappearing the next round.

Not sure how much of the weight of the tanks are container and how much is fuel, but you could also break down the weight so that the tank becomes lighter the more fuel you expend. Maybe 4.lbs for the tanks and 6.lbs per charge?

Brawler's Flurry isn't Flurry of Blows. Besides the name, the mechanics are fundamentally different. Unless it's stated somewhere that it counts as such, then I'm sure it doesn't qualify as flurry of blows for any prerequisites.

Stacking monk and sacred fist levels for flurry I agree makes sense, but isn't strictly supported by the rules.

Liam Warner wrote:
I like to world build and being able to put a number of thiis kind of thing helps.

I get where you're coming from, but in practice, it's as the above posters say. When you've got a party of 16th level PCs, you're going to want more than 6 NPCs in the entire nation that can match their power. The party will meet roughly the same number of NPCs each level, so you'll end up stating about as many legendary NPCs as you do standard, assuming a 1-20 campaign.

That said, if you're just looking to have a better grasp of the level distribution in your own setting, I would start by figuring out the demographics of a given nation. Here's a link relating to that. Haven't read much of it, but it looks thorough! Anyway, once you've figured out the demographics, you can start assigning each occupation an average level depending on their clout/capability. Do some math and you'll know the overall level distribution of a nation, and a have clearer picture of what the numbers represent.

A creator can create an item at a lower caster level than her own, but never lower than the minimum level needed to cast the needed spell.

If you have a custom item with multiple magic abilities, the caster level would be the minimum needed to cast the highest level spell associated with the item.

By the way, even though a 3rd level caster could reasonably meet the DC to craft a particular item, the main prohibiting factor is cost. A +6 belt of physical perfection costs 77k to craft, and the party will likely have an assortment of lower level gear that will take priority.

Bolt Ace should be able to pull off two-weapon fighting with crossbows pretty simply.

Inexplicable Reload (Ex): At 11th level, loading a crossbow becomes unthinking and automatic for a bolt ace. As long as she has at least 1 grit point, she always starts each round of combat (even a surprise round) with her crossbow loaded. Also the amount of time needed to reload a crossbow decreases by one step: a standard action becomes a move action, a move action becomes a swift action, a swift action becomes a free action, and a free action becomes not an action.

If you can get the reload time down to not an action, you're no longer taking an action to reload your crossbow, making TWF viable. If you're worried there is no explanation for how you'd reload your crossbows without a free hand, consider the ability is named inexplicable reload.

I lean towards saying no. Not well read on the technology guild, but from a quick search, slow-firing firearms are generally unconventional weapons. They require a full-round action to use, which means you're not even taking the attack action (a standard action). As such, I would assume that the full-round action required to use slow-firing weapons prevents them from being used as a part of other actions (like Dead Shot, Vital Strike, etc).

1 to 50 of 327 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.